Has anyone seen one of the full messages from the source of the meeting story other than Tony Smith, me and one other party which was cc'ed on mine? That's not to say Tony got the one I got -- he has not answered my inquiry to him yesterday. There are fascinating parts of my message that haven't come to light -- yet. We'll publish all the messages with the tracking headers we've got it if we can prove the information is false. Which Tony Smith didn't do beyond being, apparently, buffaloed by disclaimers that are standard smoke for shenanigans, at least as far as his retraction went. Could be he's blowing smoke to cover his own looking more closely at the matter. Hal's Finney's critique was pretty good, but I assume it was based on the information that has been made public. Tony Smith didn't report stuff in the message I got, again not that we got the same message. Nor did he report the results of a follow-up from his source if he asked for it. What we have done with a bit of technical tracking and matching time data is get within one or two boxes of the source, ID'ed an unusual browser type, the operating system, some other yadda log file stuff. Fingering the source is the last thing to do, and then only if the episode was rigged by RIAA or other alleged attendees. No need to beat up on Smith, there are so many blandly verifiable stories published that it's refreshing to see one that remains disputably interesting. Sorry to see his retraction just when the topic gets interesting. Hope he digs up more on why the story was spread rather than duck the spin control.